THINK TANK | What Is Russia’s Intervention in Syria All About? by Emma Ashford, CATO Institute

There’s been a
lot of speculation in the press recently about Russia’s motives for its
military intervention in Syria, and many are quick to attribute the
intervention to a desire to – metaphorically speaking - poke America in the
eye. Surrounding this speculation are images of Vladimir Putin as a strategic
genius, playing geopolitical chess at the grand master level.

Nothing could be
further from the truth. It’s certainly
convenient for Putin to make the United States look bad in any way he can. But
there are a variety of other reasons for Russia’s involvement in Syria. And
though Putin may briefly look like he is in control of the situation in Syria,
the intervention is likely to end badly for him.

It’s notable
that while many reports are portraying the Russian intervention in terms of
U.S.-Russian relations, and intimating that Russia is in some way ‘winning’,
Russia specialists are more likely to point to other factors, and to view the
intervention as ill-fated.

Politico
recently published a compilation of interviews with 14 Russia specialists on
Putin’s goals in Syria. All but one pointed to a couple of key factors to
explain Russian intervention: 1) Russian domestic concerns; 2) a desire for
diplomatic gain; or 3) a desire to prevent other authoritarian regimes from
falling. More tellingly, the vast majority also expressed the opinion that
Russia’s actions are reckless, and will end badly.

The first of
these motivations – domestic political concerns – is likely the key reason for
Russia’s intervention in Syria. It’s an excellent opportunity for Vladimir
Putin to distract domestic attention from his ongoing failings in Ukraine, and
to present an image of Russia as a great power.

The campaign is
television gold for a regime which relies heavily on state media and propaganda
to maintain popular support at home. Russia’s most recent escalation – the use
of cruise missiles fired from ships in the Caspian Sea against targets in Syria – was announced by
Defense Minister Sergei Shoygu in a live TV interview with Putin. A cynic would
suspect that the strikes were strategically incidental and intended mostly for
a domestic audience.

The United
States plays some role in the second motivation. But rather than seeking to
directly confront the United States in Syria, it’s likely that Russia is
seeking a diplomatic bargaining chip. Though Putin has strongly supported the
Assad regime for some time, it has been unable to move the diplomatic needle on
Western and Gulf state demands that Assad must go.

Direct
intervention in the conflict gives it a larger stake and greater bargaining
power in negotiations. And Russia’s intervention not only distracts from its
involvement in Ukraine, it enables it to reengage with the international
diplomatic community after a period of relative isolation.

The third of
these motivations is Russian hopes of preventing the fall of a friendly
authoritarian ally. Yet even this has some roots in Russian domestic politics.
President Putin has long feared so-called ‘color revolutions,’ the popular
uprisings that swept a number of post-Soviet dictators from power, which
Russian media often attribute to U.S. meddling.

By intervening
in Syria, Putin not only hopes to save an allied regime, but to undermine the
idea of a successful popular uprising against an authoritarian leader. It says
far more about his paranoia and insecurity than about Russian strength.

Ultimately, U.S.
policymakers would be wise to remember these factors. Putin isn’t a strategic
genius, matching up against the United States in some geopolitical game.
Instead, he’s making a gamble in Syria, hoping for diplomatic and domestic
gain. It’s likely he’ll regret his
decision.

About The Author:

Emma Ashford is a visiting
research fellow with expertise in international security and the politics of
energy. She is an expert on the politics of petro-states, including Russia,
Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Iraq, and has written widely on Russian foreign
policy and the politics of the Middle East. Her dissertation research focused
on the ways in which oil production and export shape foreign policy and
conflict.

Ashford holds
a PhD in foreign affairs from the University of Virginia, and an MA from
American University’s School of International Service.

Note: Embedded Video is for reference purpose only, not linked with the Author or Original Publisher

The republication of this article has been authorized by the Original
Publisher.